Google and Apple Blatantly Lie About Grooveshark Ban

Some of you may be familiar with streaming music site Grooveshark, which allows user uploads but contends that it is legal and policies violations.
Recently, Google and Apple both removed the Grooveshark app from their mobile stores, claiming that the site is a major violator of copyright law.

Now, it's no secret that both companies are developing their own streaming "cloud" music services. Another thing which is no secret is that
Grooveshark is operating in a legal loophole -- but it has successfully not only remained operational, but attracted major sponsorships from extremely
reputable corporations, and continuously improved its interface and library, over the last several years. Calling it an illegal service is a matter of
opinion at best, and in context, it's more like what you might call a damn lie.

Now it turns out that Google is rumored to be in talks with Spotify, a European service highly similar to Grooveshark, which it has largely locked out
of that market.

Lie might be too kind of a word. If you ask me, this is propaganda. They are trying to scare people away from free services which are, and have been
for many years, perfectly legal to use, even if they might not always and forever remain so, and even if some people really wish they weren't.

They want people to think paying their monthly fees on top of the cost of the mp3s...an amount of money which just so happens to add up to right
around the same amount of revenue that has been lost since people became unwilling to fork over twenty bucks for one single and eight other pieces of
overproduced garbage...is safer, better -- fitter, healthier, more productive...

You can still get the Grooveshark app, by the way. Just not through the Android or Apple markets.

edit on 27-4-2011 by sepermeru because: edit
button likes my hair this way

If I were Google or Apple I probably would have done the same thing. Even Grooveshark admits it operates in a "legal loophole" - hardly the best
footing for a serious business enterprise. RIAA has complained that the site hosts copyrighted music. Grooveshark's defense is that individual users
upload content and the site can't be held responsible for what they upload. Sorry, but that defense didn't work so good for all the P2P file-sharing
networks out there, like Napster and Kazaa, or even the torrent search engines which only link to files uploaded by individuals (like
Isohunt).

I went to Grooveshark's site to see how available copyrighted music is, searched "Lady Gaga", and saw pretty much her entire discography available,
free of charge, copyrights be damned. Grooveshark's defense is "We didn't upload this, blame 'teenybopper16', She's the one who uploaded
this...".

It seems to me that Grooveshark has a problem with it's business model and is on unsure footing regarding the legality of the music it streams, and
they have to remedy this between themselves and the record labels. Blaming Google or Apple is just poor sportsmanship. Like I said, if I were Google
or Apple, I wouldn't touch this until everything was perfectly legal and above board.

Besides if Google wanted Grooveshark's business, it would have just bought them, like they bought YouTube.

Can you explain why companies like EA Games are perfectly comfortable sponsoring Grooveshark, which has been operating for many years? Why did Apple
and Google allow the app to stay up for months, until right before they launch their own music services? How do these things square up with the claim
that they only care about the legality?

And again, "legal loophole" means legal. It's a way of saying "legal" that manipulates the listener into thinking there is some category of
illegal that is also legal. Otherwise, Apple, Google and every other major corporation would be in a lot of trouble, because every single one of them
uses legal but shady means to save money when they file their taxes.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.